Obama’s All-of-the-above Energy Plan: Same Slogan, Different Version

Both Republicans and Democrats love the “all-of-the-above” slogan, because they can make it mean pretty much anything they want. Democrats use it to support pet projects in their districts. Republicans do the same. Too often politicians use this popular motto when discussing energy policy, and too often they use it to mean subsidizing everything. The federal government needs to remove the subsidies and burdensome regulations for all energy sources and technologies and allow the market to do its thing. The reality is we have a variety of domestic energy resources (nuclear, energy, oil, coal, natural gas, wind, solar, hydroelectric and biofuels). The energy market can be diverse and competitive without government interference. If these sources of energy can’t stand on their own two feet, they are likely not ready to be part of our energy mix.

Unfortunately, President Obama is continuing the status quo with the definition of all-of-the-above being synonymous to subsidies. Obama says he supports an energy policy where all sources have a slice of the pie, but his policies and rhetoric make it clear he wants the renewable slices bigger and the fossil fuel ones smaller.

For instance, President Obama’s idea of including coal in “all-of-the-above” is to drive out coal production, while simultaneously subsidizing a handful of plants with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). In March, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new source performance standards for carbon dioxide emissions that directly target coal; natural gas plants already meet the standard.

At present, CCS is an economic pipedream and even President Obama’s goal of subsidizing CCS to make it commercially viable in a decade is ambitious. That plan will only result in more wasted taxpayer dollars in an attempt to commercialize an unnecessary technology that won’t provide measurable changes in the earth’s temperature. The CO2 rule is just one of a host of administrative regulations (Utility MACT, coal ash, stream buffer zone, cross state air pollution to name a few) that are forcing existing plants to prematurely close, prohibiting the construction of new plants and making it more difficult to mine for coal. Obama’s policies are also going to drive up energy costs for American households and businesses.

The same holds true with the president’s supposed support for oil production. President Obama consistently touts the fact that domestic oil production is the highest it has been in eight years. While this is a positive development for America, production has not increased as a result of the president’s policies—rather in spite of them. If Obama were sincerely interested in increasing oil production, his administration would have approved the Keystone XL Pipeline, opened areas onshore and offshore, issued drilling permits and lease sales on time and required a timely environmental review process. He also wouldn’t have called for oil companies to pay their “fair share” by eliminating what he calls special loopholes and subsidies for oil and gas companies. The fact is they are not specific to the oil and gas industry, but are widely available to the broader manufacturing sector.

While President Obama wants to shrink the use of fossil fuels, he wants to use subsidies and mandates to increase the share of renewable energy. The commander-in-chief continues to push for doubling down on renewable energy subsidies despite the fact that subsidizing uneconomical technologies is wasteful and an economic drain. Not to mention it promotes crony capitalism and dependence on government. His past two State of the Union addresses called for mandating a clean energy standard (CES) that would require electricity producers to sell carbon-free energy. Proponents of a CES have touted the plan as a market-based approach, but if it were truly market-based, producers wouldn’t need the mandate. They would rely on price and competition.

My colleague David Kreutzer sums up President Obama’s version of all-of-the-above most appropriately:

Trending

Join The Discussion

Clean energy and green tech may be the way of the future, but unfortunately that future is not yet here and we still have to rely on the technology we have. Clean tech and renewables should be invest in, but not at the expense of current economic success

According to the CBO, in 2011 renewable energy accounted for $16 billion of the estimated budgetary cost of federal energy-related tax preferences, when the oil industry received just over $4 billion in subsidies (http://1.usa.gov/H1h80R).

So how much should we really spend for tomorrow, when gas and heating prices are so high today?

Oil is used, in some form or another, in almost every aspect of our society and economy, not just gas for our cars and trucks? It's a huge mistake to think oil companies depend of government to produce. Instead we depend on oil companies to keep prices low. Without subsidies for exploration and development, the market would "do it's thing" alright. Pump prices would equal Europe's or, as happened under Carter, we could'n't find gas to put in our tanks. By taking this absurd approach to "all of the above", we all falling into Obama's trap to justify his 'crony capitalism" scheme to repay his supporters in the environmentalist movement. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot continue to provide insensitives to "proven" energy producers, and not some energy source that is still decades away, if at all.

Don’t have time to read the Washington Post or New York Times? Then get The Morning Bell, an early morning edition of the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary and original reporting from a team committed to following the truth no matter where it leads.

Email address

Ever feel like the only difference between the New York Times and Washington Post is the name? We do. Try the Morning Bell and get the day’s most important news and commentary from a team committed to the truth in formats that respect your time…and your intelligence.